February 27, 2013

Benedict's resignation: Goldman gets it, Mead misses the point

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
comes at a critical time for the Roman Catholic Church. All
Western institutions are being shaken to the core by economic,
demographic and cultural forces and the Church is no exception.

His decision to resign is a sound one.
Gone are the days when monarchs and popes could drift into the dotage
under a regency council while the ship of state wandered aimlessly
until a new and energetic successor could emerge.

Benedict releases that the Church is
more important than the Curia; that the bureaucracy (largely insular
and Italian) are incapable of keeping the ship on course without
vigorous supervision.

Of course, Benedict will keenly recall
the decline of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, whose praiseworthy
efforts in the 80s were followed by a long, painful decline.
That the pederasty scandals broke during his convalescence inflicted
even more damage to the faith and its institutions as functionaries
ran for cover and obfuscated rather than came clean.

It is for that reason that I was
interested to read Walter Russell Mead’s take on the current state
of the Church. As a fan of erudite style and the seriousness
with which he approaches questions of religion, I looked forward to
digesting his thoughts. Having read them, I am profoundly
disappointed.

Instead of analyzing the challenges
confronting the Church, he falls back on the all-to-familiar
boilerplate that Rome is just too old-fashioned for these thoroughly
modern times. He even uses the infamous crutch of a journalist
who has an opinion but prefers not to state it in order to appear
impartial – the “many”:

Via Meadia is not inclined to
deliver ex cathedra judgements on points of Catholic doctrine so we
take no stand on the theological validity of the case against the
ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood, but the Catholic
Church’s belief in an exalted spiritual and political role for its
all-male clergy puts it at odds with what many in the West have come
to see as a vital moral principle of gender equality. This not only
creates resistance to Church teaching on a key issue among many
members and potential members, it legitimates anti-clericalism among
many advocates of women’s rights in the West. The Catholic Church,
with its ‘retrograde’ and ‘medieval’ outlook on women’s
rights, many feel, must in the name of justice be pushed aside from
social and political power wherever possible.

The commitment to an all-male clergy
also taints Catholic moral stands on issues like abortion and
homosexuality for many people. [Emphasis added]

Who are these “many?” And why
should the Church care? Near the end of the passage, Mead gives the game away:

The Church’s opponents have an easy
time characterizing Catholic beliefs about sexuality as a form of
misogyny and backwardness, and can point in indignation and derision
to the sight of an all-male College of Cardinals convening once again
to elect yet another male pope.

Oh, so the people who don’t like the
Church anyway will criticize it? I'm sorry, I almost had a heart
attack from that total lack of surprise. I imagine that the
enemies of the Church will have bad things to say no matter what the
doctrine is or who is ordained. All the more reason for the
Church to adhere to its ancient and eternal beliefs instead of
catering the popular whims of the moment.

This in fact was Benedict’s message
and one he delivered well.

However, Mead’s critique is even
weaker when we consider that Protestant churches have essentially
embraced the kind of changes the Church’s opponents demands:
women ministers, gay clergy, and support for both birth control and
abortion.

The Church of England and its American
affiliate have ordained women and invested practicing homosexuals,
yet their communion is riven with dissention and their church
attendance is collapsing. They are not alone – the United
Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainline Protestant organizations
are all losing worshipers at alarming rates.

To turn Mead on his head, many
believe that the short-sighted decisions of these denominations to dump their core beliefes in an attempt to curry popular favor have utterly undermined their
moral standing.

We already have several flavors of
“Catholic Lite” and none of them are doing well. Indeed, I defy Mead to produce someone who would be a Catholic if only they made a woman pope and let gay priests marry each other. (Note: Andrew Sullivan does not count.)

Yet if Mead has completely missed the point of Benedict's ministry, David P. Goldman, who channels Spengler
for Asia Times, understands it completely.

Goldman distilled this concept as "I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it." Rather than fall back on tired liberal theological tropes, Goldman actually read what His Holiness has to say. He quotes this brilliant passage from one of Benedict's works:

We might have to part with the notion
of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new
era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different
from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble
the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in
the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will
oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world.

It is, as Goldman says, a stunning
assertion.

It also perfectly refutes Mead’s concerns.
Better that the Church endure persecution and privation than that it
surrender its sacred doctrine. Holding to eternal truth is not a popularity contest.

How can Mead be unaware of this?

As I've said, Walter Russell Mead has a great deal of insight, but his knowledge of the Catholic Church seems to be an area where he needs to do more research.